Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

[low preference guy]

the winner of this thread is definitely the OP

 

[TheViper]

I challenge any atheist to give me even one logical atheistic argument or logical reason for being an atheist.

I've seen lots of atheistic arguments and have never seen even one logical argument from atheists. I declare that there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument.

Everything is free and open, as soon as you provide your argument I'll just explain how it's illogical.

There is no logical reason to be an atheist.

The logic is very simple. God is not proven to exist. If you cannot prove his existence then you cannot say an atheist position is illogical. No more so can one disprove his existence and claim a theistic position is illogical.

 

[robert68]

How so?

I misspoke a bit, and had in mind prophecies people other than Jesus supposedly fulfilled (which may not have been what you were referring to). Now take Judas, if he hadn’t betrayed Jesus, Jesus wouldn’t have been turned over to those who killed him, which for Christianity’s sake, had to happen.

 

[TER]

Now take Judas, if he hadn’t betrayed Jesus, Jesus wouldn’t have been turned over to those who killed him, which for Christianity’s sake, had to happen.

Oh no! Let's not start this debate again!

It's too late and I am too tired to start debating predestination and free will all over again!

Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[robert68]

Ok. Good night.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

can we debate whether or not a person would still believe in the same god if he/she was born on a different continent next?

I love that one....

 

[LukeO]

The facts support it.

 

[Jonathon]

Challenge to Atheists

Deleted.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

can we debate whether or not a person would still believe in the same god if he/she was born on a different continent next?

I love that one....

anyone...

would love some proof to dispute my ideas that IF you were born on a different continent your ENTIRE religious upbringing would CHANGE your belief in god. I doubt you can find a rebuttle in an old book to refute that line of thinking.

 

[Jonathon]

Deleted.

 

[itsnobody]

Well this whole challenge you have presented is illogical since it starts with the assumption of theism, then ask people who do not believe to refute it. The burden of proof is on the theist, the one making the claim, not the atheist. The atheist position is not making the outrageous claim.

So I guess you can say my argument is that I refute your assumption of a deity.

Well I am back, I haven't had much spare time at all lately.

You are just using a straw man argument here, the assumption made in this post is that "there is no logical reason to be an atheist", it does not assume that Theism is true or false.

So your argument is illogical

 

[itsnobody]

define proof, and define atheist. define definition also.

Well I guess I'm talking about non-weak atheists.

As for proof, scientific proof is just a repeatable observation where the conclusion drawn from the observation does not violate Ockham's razor and directly supports your view

 

[itsnobody]

I was never raised with a religion, so to me, Christianity sounds just as ridiculous as the thousands of other creation stories out there, any of which could be mutually exclusive. If only one religion existed vs atheism, that would be a different story. But there are different creation stories for every single culture on earth. What makes Christianity different than the rest, besides the fact that you were raised a Christian?

It's not really relevant what people were raised to believe, you can't determine whether or not a belief is true or false by determining the psychology behind the belief.

My parents and sister are atheists, I really don't have any kind of family pressure or reason to be a Theist.

 

[itsnobody]

I suspect he is wanting evidence that zeus does not exist.

It's just another straw man argument, I asked for a logical reason to be an atheist, and there is none.

 

[itsnobody]

Well, being that everyone is born an atheist, why don't YOU give us a reason why you chose a different path - a path of following a fairy in the sky? I gave up santa claus a long time ago, why don't you? Give is a logical reason; the burden of proof is on you, not atheists.

Everyone was born agnostic or without knowledge of God

Also the burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim, I made the claim that "there is no logical reason to be an atheist" and then challenged anyone to purpose a logical argument.

If atheists believe that atheism is logical, then the burden of proof is on them to show that is true, since the burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim

 

[itsnobody]

I'd like you to state the illogical nature of the following:

There is no proof of a flying spaghetti monster; thus, it is irrational to believe that it exists.


Now, replace flying spaghetti monster with the deity of your choice.

What's illogical with this is that it's an argument from ignorance, also I would have to know your definition of a FSM.

"There's no proof of X, so X is false" is an argument from ignorance and illogical. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What is evidence of absence is some observation indicating that a claim is false.

It is neither rational nor irrational to believe or disbelieve in an untestable hypothesis, so without your definition of a FSM I can't really go into details

 

[itsnobody]

Hmmm. This doesn't really make any sense. I believe you are mistaking "atheism" e.g. "lack of a belief in God" for something along the lines of "anti-theism" which is more or less the assertion that "God does not exist". I am, and I believe most non-believers are, more along the lines of "atheists", i.e. we simply do not believe in God, we do not assert that God cannot exist.

Well it depends on if you're going by the historical definition of atheism, which is the belief that there is no God versus the new recent re-defined definition of atheism

Atheists have tried to re-define lots of words

 

[itsnobody]

I am free and open to the logical argument of there being a god. I just haven't heard one that resonated yet, primarily because the arguments have come from believers in the Abrahamic god. Not only do I find the existence of the Abrahamic god illogical, but I also find this god highly offensive. Care to offer up any others?

Just another straw man argument. I did claim I had logical arguments to be a Theist, I claimed there was no logical reason to be an atheist.

 

[itsnobody]

I'm not really a big fan of this debate, but the one thing i would say is this..... what do the people who study the origins of life conclude? From everything I've seen the scientific community is overwhelmingly atheist.

Just an appeal to authority, and therefore illogical. Historically authority figures have always been wrong, that's why it's illogical.

You can't show that something is true or false by saying some authority says so.

 

[itsnobody]

Logical. This thread is going to be a hoot. I am an atheist under admission that I don't understand anything else. While the concept of something greater and bigger than myself exists, it is not an element of life that I can put a finger on. I could look and see the sun and say the sun is greater and bigger than me. Is there anything about the sun that makes me feel compelled to get on my knees and worship it, ask it for guidance on my morals? No, but many have and do. When I see things, I see many cool things. I just don't see a god.

I don't understand your argument, what do you mean by "I just don't see god"